Washington Post
01-02-07
Campaign trail pocked with Senate votes
President hopefuls have lot to explain
Shailagh Murray, The Washington Post
WASHINGTON - The attack ads practically write themselves: Hillary Clinton
voted against ethanol! Barack Obama wants to increase taxes!
Such are the perils of running for president as a senator. The two front-runners
for the 2008 Democratic nomination are newcomers to the chamber. But in the
two years that Clinton and Obama have overlapped, they have taken opposite
sides at least 40 times. That's a lot of material to mine -- and even misrepresent.
Of the eight senators pondering presidential runs, Clinton, who is completing her
first Senate term, and Obama, sworn in two years ago, have the briefest voting
histories. The Senate has held 645 roll-call votes during their shared tenure, and
more than 90 percent of the time the two senators stood with other Democrats.
They opposed John Roberts' nomination as chief justice, supported increased
funding for embryonic stem cell research and backed the same nonbinding
measure that urged President Bush to plan for a gradual troop withdrawal from
Iraq.
But other votes reveal important differences between the Democratic rivals that
distinguish them as they prepare to launch their candidacies. The areas of
dispute include energy policy, budget priorities and relations with Cuba.
Ethanol and taxes
In corn-growing Iowa, the first stop in the presidential nominating process,
Clinton will have to explain the ethanol vote she cast June 15, 2005. The senator
recently softened her stance, but she is on record opposing a large federal boost
for the grain-based fuel.
And Obama voted to increase taxes when he opposed a package of business
breaks that included the extension of middle-class provisions. Clinton voted for
the tax bill -- before she voted against it, as did Obama, in the legislation's final
form.
As Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and former senator Robert Dole, R-Kan.,
discovered in previous campaigns, the Congressional Record is a minefield for
White House contenders, a catalogue of provincial concerns, convoluted logic
and compromised principles.
"A senator is called upon to vote on almost everything," said former senator Tom
Daschle, D-S.D., who recently decided against a 2008 bid. Legislative records
become "an inviting target for any political opponent," he said, because so few
votes speak for themselves, much less reflect a lawmaker's true ideals.
One of the sharpest substantive divides between Clinton and Obama is over
ethanol, an issue of particular potency with Iowa primary voters.
Iowa has more ethanol plants than any other state. "If someone voted or has a
position against ethanol, it will be used by their opponents, and it will be another
issue they need to overcome" with voters in Iowa caucuses, said Steffen
Schmidt, professor of political science at Iowa State University.
Another fault line is spending. Obama sided with fiscal conservatives on several
high-profile measures to strip funding for pet projects, including a widely criticized
Pentagon travel system and the relocation of a railroad line along the Mississippi
Gulf Coast that was part of a Hurricane Katrina redevelopment project. Clinton
voted in favor of the projects.
One budget-related vote with broader political implications would have stripped
funding for TV Marti, which attempts to provide television programming to Cuba,
though the Cuban government jams the signal. Critics in Congress complain that
the United States has spent almost $200 million on the failed effort and have
targeted the program year after year.
Obama twice voted to cut off TV Marti funding, while Clinton supported
maintaining it. Those votes will resonate in Florida, which is a key primary state
and may reschedule its 2008 primary date from March to February.
Votes belie positions
In several instances, Clinton and Obama voted against measures that they
supported in principle, because the bills were not strong enough. Clinton
opposed a restructuring plan for the Federal Emergency Management Agency
that Obama and 86 other senators backed, because it did not restore the
Cabinet-level status that FEMA had attained under President Clinton, her
husband. One of Obama's chief interests in the Senate has been ethics reform,
but he was one of eight senators to oppose a bill aimed at tightening lobbyist
rules because it was not strong enough. Clinton supported the initiative.
"You're voting for so many things that can be misconstrued," said Steve
Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist and former campaign adviser to presidential
candidates Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., a House member for nearly 30 years, and
Kerry, a four-term senator. "It's great if you're the opposition."